mgorny added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754#580268, @beanz wrote:
> @mgorny, I don't think LLVMgold qualifies as a runtime in the traditional > sense. It more closely aligns with the tools vended by LLVM even though it is > a shared library not an executable. > > Runtime libraries are specifically libraries that products of clang are > linked against (builtins, sanitizers, libcxx, libunwind...). > > That bit of semantics aside, I don't think there is any situation where > LLVMgold's libdir suffix would be different from LLVM's libdir suffix. Since > LLVMgold is built and installed as part of LLVM, there is no mechanism (nor > do I think there should be) to cause such a differentiation. > > @rafael may disagree, and I will defer to his judgment if he does. My take is > that we should just use LLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX for LLVMgold, and not have a > separate variable. The difference is that LLVMgold.so is not used by LLVM or clang directly but by the system binutils, and so it must match the ABI of the linker. If you have 32-bit libclang*, LLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX is 32 but ld is still a 64-bit executable that needs 64-bit LLVMgold.so. https://reviews.llvm.org/D23754 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
